2019 Green Bay Packers Season Thread

[patrickgpe]

Does anyone still think Kizer is making this team?

don't they have to keep 3? With how many QB's that get injured, I think every team has to keep 3 and not just put one a practice squad like they used to. look how many times recently, the packers got bit by cutting their 3rd only to be picked up on waivers before they could put them on the practice squad (anybody not prefer Hill over Boyle / Kizer to backup?) (unless there is a better option on the WW AND i would add Wilkins to the practice squad as well.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

When were the Packers bitten by keeping two? I'm genuinely asking. It felt like they kept 2 most of the McCarthy era. Taysom Hill? I think a bit much has been made of that/him. He's kind of just a glorified gimmick and I don't think he would have done much for GB. I would rather keep 7 wideouts than Kizer. If they're dead set on keeping 3 QBs take a flyer on someone else. This guy doesn't deserve a job just because we decide to keep 3 QBs. Whatever "it" is he doesn't have it.

[patrickgpe]

in 2017, the packers only had rogers and hundly on their roster, when A-Rod went down the team had to resign Callahan whom was one of the final roster cuts.

 

I believe there was some issues in 2013 when Tolzien, Rodgers and Wallace all went down, but I give you that was a freak year.

 

The issue with keep 2, is that if you starter goes down, you are rushing around during the week to get a backup, unless you have a practice squad one you are comfortable with promoting to the main roster.

 

I'll give you, that if A-Rod goes down, it doesn't matter if you start Kizer or Boyle, its going to be hard to win many games with either, so you might as well put as much talent on the roster as you can.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

This has been re-hashed here already, but while it doesn't matter who the QB is if Rodgers breaks his collarbone, it does matter if he sprains his ankle or has a concussion and someone can give you a shot to cover 1-3 games. Does anyone think Kizer is that guy? Does anyone think Kizer is that guy if Boyle is the only other option? I don't see a place for him on the team. He knows the playbook I guess. But I can keep six QBs and if they all stink it doesn't solve my problem.

 

Brock Osweiller and Matt Cassel are FAs. Are they stiffs? Yeah, maybe. But if Rodgers goes down and this team is any good as advertised defensively and running the ball, those are guys that can move the chains. No clue what $$ the Packers are working with for a one-year deal or what those guys would want. But I would all for signing them if it is possible.

 

Rodgers has been hurt enough in his career (many forget he essentially missed 2 games the year they won the Super Bowl) that it's astonishes me they never have a lick of depth at the position. I totally understand that you can't commit capital to a backup when you have to pay the starter that much, but I can't believe those guys are THAT out of budget. Kizer is making over a million, they really can't afford an extra $2-3m to possibly avoid the disaster they've already seen unfold numerous times? I don't get it.

[patrickgpe]

agreed, why they didn't try to get anyone better than Kizer is beyond me. I believe that they did try to trade up for Lock in April, but if you have to throw in a rookie QB into emergency duty, you are also asking for trouble. My defense for keeping 3 is that you can teach these guys your system, rather than signing the Brock Lobster in week 4 and giving him a crash course in your offense and expect him to help. I never said that I think Boyle and Kizer should be the backups, I do think you need to keep 3 and figure out a way to make it work. It was only in the last few years that teams started only carrying 2, up until the early 10's every team had a 3rd stringer on the roster, teams just figured they valued that spot to get someone to help on Special teams or add another player who can help you, which I get. QB's seem to be going down at a much faster rate than back them and you need to account for that.

[OldHeidelberg]

The team laid down every time Rodgers went down under MM. None of those QB's that filled in were good but I don't think it was just the drop off in QB play that made the losses pile up. Hopefully our new coach can correct that and we actually have a chance if he goes down again.

[OnTheBlack]

Does anyone still think Kizer is making this team?

 

 

Yes.

[OnTheBlack]

Does anyone still think Kizer is making this team?

don't they have to keep 3? With how many QB's that get injured, I think every team has to keep 3 and not just put one a practice squad like they used to. look how many times recently, the packers got bit by cutting their 3rd only to be picked up on waivers before they could put them on the practice squad (anybody not prefer Hill over Boyle / Kizer to backup?) (unless there is a better option on the WW AND i would add Wilkins to the practice squad as well.

 

That's pretty much what they a couple times after Rodgers got injured, but they'd probably be able to get Boyle through waivers and onto the PS. There's always a lot of love for the UDFA who completes a few passes in pre-season, no matter how bad they look before.

 

The only difference I see between the two is that Kizer's actually played, even if it was on a horrible team, and he can move a little bit.

[OnTheBlack]

The team laid down every time Rodgers went down under MM. None of those QB's that filled in were good but I don't think it was just the drop off in QB play that made the losses pile up. Hopefully our new coach can correct that and we actually have a chance if he goes down again.

 

No they didn't. This is 100 pct revisionist history.

 

They sucked most of the time because the best player at the most important position in team sports went down. The team didn't quit trying. Otherwise I'm pretty sure we'd have gone into NE with Matt Flynn and gotten blown out instead of losing a close game that took a 55 yard kick return by one of their offensive linemen to help them win.

 

agreed, why they didn't try to get anyone better than Kizer is beyond me. I believe that they did try to trade up for Lock in April, but if you have to throw in a rookie QB into emergency duty, you are also asking for trouble.

 

I hadn't heard they tried moving up for Lock, but that would have been pretty interesting. They should have fewer needs next year, so I like the idea of grabbing one of those UGA QB's, or former QB's. Fromm could be there in the 2nd round next year and would seem to have enough of an arm to play in this system. They need to eventually find a young talented QB.

 

As for why they didn't go and get a better QB, again, I'd ask who? Matt Cassell? He's a 38 year old statue. Osweiler, maybe he's better. He's still unsigned I believe, so they could bring him in. But the previous off-season they'd traded for a QB in Kizer who McCarthy raved about and. Say whatever you want about McCarthy...and like Reid after he left Philly, people have forgotten virtually everything he did well and accomplished in GB because it was so stale at the end, but McCarthy had a pretty good history of developing/coaching QB's. And the guy you traded for was a 2nd round pick who went and had to start for the worst team in the league right out of the gate. Giver Kizer the starting unit....he's still not good. But he more likely to extend drives with his legs and do some of the little things that can keep you together during the 2 game stretch people mentioned. I'm not seeing that with Boyle. In fact, it feels like people pick the best parts of Boyle and take the worst parts of Kizer to evaluate because for whatever reason, we always love that no-name small school UDFA. Boyle wasn't just bad to start the game, he was absolutely terrible. Kizer goes 8-11 or whatever for a TD and it's described as "solid," and people argue vehemently with that depiction.

 

 

It'll be interesting what they do though. That Boyle played with the "starters," and Kizer with the backup's means it's obviously still very close.

[OldHeidelberg]

 

No they didn't. This is 100 pct revisionist history.

 

They sucked most of the time because the best player at the most important position in team sports went down. The team didn't quit trying. Otherwise I'm pretty sure we'd have gone into NE with Matt Flynn and gotten blown out instead of losing a close game that took a 55 yard kick return by one of their offensive linemen to help them win.

 

Well, that's your opinion. I thought it was obvious at the time they laid down both times he was out long term and I wasn't alone in thinking this. Sure we all thought the talent level was a little higher than it was outside of QB but it doesn't explain why the entire team turned into the Cleveland Browns. Especially the first few games without him there was a drop off in play in all areas in my opinion. I did forget about the NE game the Super Bowl year but he was only out for a game and a half. They did lose to a bad Detroit team the game he got hurt but that is probably expected.

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

When Rodgers missed seven games in 2013 and nine games in 2017, the player remembers teammates outright quitting.

 

"That's when the real coaching, the real identity, the real character came out of everybody," he says. "I saw that guys give up when we don't have a star quarterback. I see guys aren't going to give it all when their backs are against the wall."

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2828649-what-happened-in-green-bay

[OldHeidelberg]

 

No they didn't. This is 100 pct revisionist history.

 

They sucked most of the time because the best player at the most important position in team sports went down. The team didn't quit trying. Otherwise I'm pretty sure we'd have gone into NE with Matt Flynn and gotten blown out instead of losing a close game that took a 55 yard kick return by one of their offensive linemen to help them win.

 

Well, that's your opinion. I thought it was obvious at the time they laid down both times he was out long term and I wasn't alone in thinking this. Sure we all thought the talent level was a little higher than it was outside of QB but it doesn't explain why the entire team turned into the Cleveland Browns. Especially the first few games without him there was a drop off in play in all areas in my opinion. I did forget about the NE game the Super Bowl year but he was only out for a game and a half. They did lose to a bad Detroit team the game he got hurt but that is probably expected.

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

When Rodgers missed seven games in 2013 and nine games in 2017, the player remembers teammates outright quitting.

 

"That's when the real coaching, the real identity, the real character came out of everybody," he says. "I saw that guys give up when we don't have a star quarterback. I see guys aren't going to give it all when their backs are against the wall."

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2828649-what-happened-in-green-bay

[OldHeidelberg]

 

No they didn't. This is 100 pct revisionist history.

 

They sucked most of the time because the best player at the most important position in team sports went down. The team didn't quit trying. Otherwise I'm pretty sure we'd have gone into NE with Matt Flynn and gotten blown out instead of losing a close game that took a 55 yard kick return by one of their offensive linemen to help them win.

 

Well, that's your opinion. I thought it was obvious at the time they laid down both times he was out long term and I wasn't alone in thinking this. Sure we all thought the talent level was a little higher than it was outside of QB but it doesn't explain why the entire team turned into the Cleveland Browns. Especially the first few games without him there was a drop off in play in all areas in my opinion. I did forget about the NE game the Super Bowl year but he was only out for a game and a half. They did lose to a bad Detroit team the game he got hurt but that is probably expected.

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

When Rodgers missed seven games in 2013 and nine games in 2017, the player remembers teammates outright quitting.

 

"That's when the real coaching, the real identity, the real character came out of everybody," he says. "I saw that guys give up when we don't have a star quarterback. I see guys aren't going to give it all when their backs are against the wall."

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2828649-what-happened-in-green-bay

[PeaveyFury]

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

 

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point?

[PeaveyFury]

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

 

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point?

[PeaveyFury]

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

 

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point?

[OldHeidelberg]

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

 

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point?

 

I know MM denied the massage thing, of course he would, and I am sure others who didn't look so good challenged it as well but is there stuff that was actually proven false? I don't keep up on Packer news like I used to. Things brought up like the team quitting, MM's teams being soft, and the front office too focused on non football stuff and the brand fit into opinions I had before so of course I tend to believe it.

[OldHeidelberg]

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

 

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point?

 

I know MM denied the massage thing, of course he would, and I am sure others who didn't look so good challenged it as well but is there stuff that was actually proven false? I don't keep up on Packer news like I used to. Things brought up like the team quitting, MM's teams being soft, and the front office too focused on non football stuff and the brand fit into opinions I had before so of course I tend to believe it.

[OldHeidelberg]

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

 

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point?

 

I know MM denied the massage thing, of course he would, and I am sure others who didn't look so good challenged it as well but is there stuff that was actually proven false? I don't keep up on Packer news like I used to. Things brought up like the team quitting, MM's teams being soft, and the front office too focused on non football stuff and the brand fit into opinions I had before so of course I tend to believe it.

[OnTheBlack]

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

 

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point?

 

 

Yes. He sensationalized things and exaggerated things where he didn't need to for the purpose(presumably) of getting a bigger audience.

 

Him just talking about the discord between Rodgers and McCarthy, how often Rodgers changed plays...etc...etc..would have been good enough. But everyone in the story disputed some of the more absurd aspect. Like McCarthy basically skipping meetings and "sneaking" the massage therapist up the back door so she'd be unseen. Like getting a massage is somehow a bad thing.

 

I know MM denied the massage thing, of course he would, and I am sure others who didn't look so good challenged it as well but is there stuff that was actually proven false?

 

Everyone denied it. As in they denied he "snuck" away to get one or that it was a dirty little secret. He just got massages. I remember other coaches talking about how ridiculous that part in particular was...and it made sense. They work ridiculous hours, apparently they have bad problems-or at least sore backs. And he got massages. It was the Soap Opera like nonsense that was disputed by everyone.

 

 

He basically ran with everything and then just said an "unnamed source said." At a certain point it got ridiculous.

 

Where there's smoke, there's fire. But that doesn't mean it's a forest fire.

[OnTheBlack]

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

 

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point?

 

 

Yes. He sensationalized things and exaggerated things where he didn't need to for the purpose(presumably) of getting a bigger audience.

 

Him just talking about the discord between Rodgers and McCarthy, how often Rodgers changed plays...etc...etc..would have been good enough. But everyone in the story disputed some of the more absurd aspect. Like McCarthy basically skipping meetings and "sneaking" the massage therapist up the back door so she'd be unseen. Like getting a massage is somehow a bad thing.

 

I know MM denied the massage thing, of course he would, and I am sure others who didn't look so good challenged it as well but is there stuff that was actually proven false?

 

Everyone denied it. As in they denied he "snuck" away to get one or that it was a dirty little secret. He just got massages. I remember other coaches talking about how ridiculous that part in particular was...and it made sense. They work ridiculous hours, apparently they have bad problems-or at least sore backs. And he got massages. It was the Soap Opera like nonsense that was disputed by everyone.

 

 

He basically ran with everything and then just said an "unnamed source said." At a certain point it got ridiculous.

 

Where there's smoke, there's fire. But that doesn't mean it's a forest fire.

[OnTheBlack]

 

From the Tyler Dunne article this offseason:

 

 

I don't have a horse in the 'team quit or not' debate, but hasn't like half of that Dunne article been challenged/debunked at this point?

 

 

Yes. He sensationalized things and exaggerated things where he didn't need to for the purpose(presumably) of getting a bigger audience.

 

Him just talking about the discord between Rodgers and McCarthy, how often Rodgers changed plays...etc...etc..would have been good enough. But everyone in the story disputed some of the more absurd aspect. Like McCarthy basically skipping meetings and "sneaking" the massage therapist up the back door so she'd be unseen. Like getting a massage is somehow a bad thing.

 

I know MM denied the massage thing, of course he would, and I am sure others who didn't look so good challenged it as well but is there stuff that was actually proven false?

 

Everyone denied it. As in they denied he "snuck" away to get one or that it was a dirty little secret. He just got massages. I remember other coaches talking about how ridiculous that part in particular was...and it made sense. They work ridiculous hours, apparently they have bad problems-or at least sore backs. And he got massages. It was the Soap Opera like nonsense that was disputed by everyone.

 

 

He basically ran with everything and then just said an "unnamed source said." At a certain point it got ridiculous.

 

Where there's smoke, there's fire. But that doesn't mean it's a forest fire.

[nodakfan17]

The Packers have released Josh Jones, per Jones’ Twitter.

[wildcat83]

The Packers have released Josh Jones, per Jones’ Twitter.

 

Pretty surprising given the injury to Burks. Thought he would play quite a bit of dime LB, even if it wasn’t his preference. Also surprising they couldn’t get anything for him. Even a 6th or 7th.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

The Packers have released Josh Jones, per Jones’ Twitter.

 

Pretty surprising given the injury to Burks. Thought he would play quite a bit of dime LB, even if it wasn’t his preference. Also surprising they couldn’t get anything for him. Even a 6th or 7th.

 

No so surprising to me at least. I like Gute, but he's quickly proving deficient at finding value for assets that should and do have value. Daniels is another example.

[LouisEly]

This is what I'm thinking for the initial roster. While eight WRs is too many and two RBs is probably too few, I think they'll IR ESB after they go to 53 and then re-sign one of Carson or D. Williams. Similar with Bolton - they'll keep him on the 53 and then depending on the severity of the injury they might IR him after they go to 53 and then re-sign Crawford.

 

I have the 53rd spot as a toss-up between Marcedes Lewis and Fadol Brown, maybe McCray. With seven WRs I have a hard time seeing four TEs, and teams can be just as effective running with 3 WRs (forcing the defense to go to 5-6 DBs) and spreading the field as using a blocking TE. Since Brown is eligible for the practice squad, and since Gary/Z. Smith can slide inside on passing downs, I'll go with Lewis and add two DL to the practice squad (F. Brown and Simon).

 

Entirely possible one of Kizer or Boyle gets traded; if so, they go 2 QB and add either a 6th DL or 5th OLB.

 

QB (3) - Rodgers, Boyle, Kizer

RB (2*) - Jones, J. Williams

FB (1) - Vitale

WR (8*) - Adams, Allison, MV-S, Kumerow, Davis, Lazard, Shepherd, ESB* (*to IR, replaced by RB Carson/D. Williams)

TE (4) - Graham, Tonyan, Sternberger, Lewis

OL (9) - Bakhtiari, Bulaga, Light, Turner, Jenkins, Taylor, Patrick, McCray, Linsley

 

DL (5) - Adams, Clark, Keke, Lowry, Lancaster

OLB (4) - Gary, P. Smith, Z. Smith, Fackrell

ILB (4) - Martinez, Burks, Summers, Bolton* (*possibly IR, replaced by J. Crawford)

CB (6) - Alexander, King, Brown, Jackson, Hollman, T. Williams

S (4) - Amos, Savage, Greene, Jamerson

 

Specialists - Crosby, Scott, Bradley

 

PUP - Roberts

 

Practice squad - Moore, Ento, Sheldon, Nijman, Sullivan, Wilkins, Madison, F. Brown, Simon, one of D. Williams/Ford